Campaign and Election News - Covering Key Races Around the Country

Google Ads

Site Stats

Redistricting 2011: Colo. & Minnesota

Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 12:57 AM EDT

I am now on Episode 10 of my redistricting series, if you can believe it! Tonight we cover Colorado and Minnesota. I drew two maps for Minnesota -- one if the Republicans hold Tim Pawlenty's governorship in 2010, and the other if Democrats manage a gerrymandering monopoly. (The Dems have solid state legislative majorities, so that element seems set in stone.)

The process here is fairly straightforward. Whether Democrats hold their current monopoly in 2010 or lose the governor's mansion (the state legislature seems locked-in), incumbent protection will be the name of the game, aimed especially at solidifying Democratic Reps. Betsy Markey and John Salazar (most pointedly the former). Democrats would be foolish to try for a 6-1 majority and no one seems to think they'll try it.

My map definitely solidified Markey without hurting DeGette, Polis, or Perlmutter, but it didn't go as far as I hoped in protecting Salazar (my 3rd remains quite rural and is more of a swing district, but far from strongly Dem-leaning). Given the need to dole out favorable Denver suburbs to Polis, Perlmutter, and Markey, there's little Denver-area turf left to give Salazar. What to do?

District 1 - Diana DeGette (D-Denver) -- all of Denver and 19% of Arapahoe preserves a solidly liberal district.

District 2 - Jared Polis (D-Boulder) -- it may look rural and Rocky-heavy on the map, but the population anchors are Boulder County, which is kept whole, and Adams County, of which 35% is included. Less strongly Dem than before, but still plenty safe, with a moderate-liberal bent.

District 3 - John Salazar (D-Manassa) -- my disappointment is that I only moved the needle a couple points in Obama's direction here. It's still very rural, and competitive in an open seat situation. There are big pockets of population in Grand Junction, Pueblo, and Jefferson County.

District 4 - Betsy Markey (D-Fort Collins) -- New and improved for enhanced Democratic performance! 100% of Larimer, 65% of Adams, and 53% of Weld make for a safe district.

This is the first state for which I drew two maps, one a Dem gerrymander and the other a bipartisan compromise map. Since Minnesota is expected to lose a seat for a new total of seven, there were some key differences in how I handled the dropped district (as well as how I drew the urban/suburban Twin Cities seats). Collin Peterson's new 6th and Jim Oberstar's new 7th are configured similarly in both maps, with Oberstar's diluted a bit and Peterson's shored up a tad to create two mildly Dem-friendly rural districts (though Peterson's is still tough, especially with its geographical identity changing as population loss forces it to leech toward the Iowa border!).

I will run through the bipartisan map first since Republicans currently hold the gov's mansion:

District 1 - Tim Walz (D-Mankato) vs. John Kline (R-Lakeville) -- honestly, Walz vs. Kline was the only logical, not-too-awkward bipartisan incumbent showdown I could seem to configure. This district would be more or less evenly divided in partisan performance and evenly weighted in population between Walz's southern base and Kline's exurban territory.

District 2 - Erik Paulsen (R-Eden Prairie) -- this map being the bipartisan variation, Paulsen gets a clearly more Republican district comprising Anoka County, 35% of Hennepin, and 26% of Carver.

District 4 - Keith Ellison (D-Minneapolis) -- 65% of Hennepin County, and that's it, for a mostly urban Minneapolis district.

District 5 - Michele Bachmann (R-Stillwater) -- I wanted to soak up all the Republicans I could find (and Bachmann will need them if she keeps up this way).

District 6 - Collin Peterson (D-Detroit Lakes) -- how to protect Peterson without giving Oberstar an untenable district? Knowing the district would have to extend south, I tried to improve the PVI a bit by taking some rural Dem counties from his neighbor, but not move the needle too dramatically as that would jeopardize the esteemed Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman.

District 7 - Jim Oberstar (D-Chisholm) -- more of a swing district than before; Oberstar would be safe but Dems would have to fight for this as an open seat. Is it worth shoring up Peterson's seat at the cost of making this one equally swingy? I'm no longer convinced.

Overall summary: two safe Dem seats (McCollum and Ellison), two relatively safe GOP seats (Paulsen and Bachmann), two swing seats that would remain safe for their current Dem incumbents (Peterson and Oberstar), one battleground (Walz v. Kline in the 1st).

And now, the hypothetical Democratic gerrymander should luck break our way in the governor's race (and that certainly didn't happen in 1990, 1994, 1998, 2002, or 2006, but I suppose the DFL is overdue for some good fortune in this given area):

The two North Country districts certainly don't look much different, but the other five, I think, would be quite altered under a Democratic plan.

District 1 - Tim Walz (D-Mankato) -- this version mostly steers clear of the Twin Cities area and is heavier in small towns and southern counties that know and like Walz. I can't knowledgeably estimate the presidential numbers here, but assume Obama would have still won, as I pointedly tried to avoid weakening Walz for other Democrats' benefit.

District 2 - John Kline (R-Lakeville) vs. Michele Bachmann (R-Stillwater) -- yay, a chance to eliminate Bachmann! Except that, based purely on factors of geography, media coverage, and name recognition, Bachmann would have a good fighting chance in a Republican primary here. Oh well, at least it's an eliminated GOP seat.

District 3 - Erik Paulsen (R-Eden Prairie) -- given how hard it will be to shore up Collin Peterson land without undermining Oberstar's Iron Range seat, you can bet the Democrats would milk the Twin Cities for every vote they're worth, and that means messing with Paulsen. Here his district comprises 58% of Anoka, 20% of Dakota, and 42% of Hennepin, for a moderately Dem-leaning/Obama-friendly suburban seat.

District 4 - Betty McCollum (D-St. Paul) -- Give and take, give and take. So the 4th gets diluted a bit as it suburbanizes; it's still plenty solid, but doesn't waste votes as before.

District 5 - Keith Ellison (D-Minneapolis) -- extends into Anoka County to hurt Paulsen but remains liberal and overwhelmingly Democratic.

District 6 - Collin Peterson (D-Detroit Lakes) -- not a heck of a lot different than in the bipartisan map.

District 7 - Jim Oberstar (D-Chisholm) -- ditto.

This map only includes one super-safe GOP seat, two very safe Dem seats, three swing seats that would be strong for their Dem incumbents (Walz, Peterson, Oberstar), and one swing seat that would be vulnerable to ousting its GOP incumbent (Paulsen).

Last I saw was in December when Election Data Services released their annual report. I'm pretty sure they had Minnesota losing a seat in all their models (or was it just most of them?). I suppose with the slowdown in migration it's perfectly possible the 8th seat gets saved (EDS did say New York is now on track to lose only one seat instead of two thanks to the halt in Rust Belt-to-Sun Belt migration).

According to Election Services the 2008 report, they're expected to hold onto their 8th seat by the skin of their teeth. They could still lose it though, maybe if the economy heats up again and people remember all the reasons they were living Minneapolis for Las Vegas and Orlando.

If reapportionment were held today, Minnesota would hold on, but all their models have it narrowly falling overboard. He either only read the first part of the report or he's feeling rather optimistic.

map, not as smart as your others. You went in the wrong direction. For one you changed the 7th from a 70% Adams county district to a mostly Jefferson county-Araphroe County district that is almost totally new for Perlmutter and a lot more conservative territory overall despite how it may have voted for Obama.

Putting Adams in the 4th wasn't the best strategy either, and you, like everyone else, have been too concerned with protecting a popular incumbent like John Salazar. Trying to make the 3rd Democratic is a waste of time and votes.

Okay, here's the deal. Markey's district, you lop off all the plains, keep fast growing Weld which is trending Dem and Markey's base of Larimer. That comprises about 600,000 votes of an aproximately 740,000 vote district. Make up the rest by placing Broomfield, Jackson and Routt and a large chunk of northern Boulder. Creates a safely Democratic leaning district that will only trend more and more so.

I would extend CO-02 to the northwest. Though very Republican the area is rural and has few votes. So the new district would consist of most of Boulder, Gilpin, Clear Creek, Grand, Summit, Eagle, Garfiel, Morfatt and Rio Blanco.

Like I said nothing can be done for CO-03 and it becomes slightly more Republican but Salazar can handle it.

The plus side? CO-06 takes in all the plain areas that used to be in CO-04, but they have very little population. It remains dominated by Araphroe, Democratic leaningish and becoming more so, and is redrawn to have more Democratic northern Jefferson as well as only a sliver of more conservative northern Douglas county.

CO-07 reminas super republican.

But this is a good, fair map, rperesentative of the state. It retains three Republican leaning districts and four Democratic leaning ones that are trending moreso. What's more, a strong moderate Democratc would be posed to win CO-06 if Coffman bails for Governor in 2014. A possible 6-1 delegation in what is really hardly a gerrymander and couldn't be criticized as partisan.

to protect Salazar, adding the soutehrn tier of Jefferson. For one Jefferson is heavily weighted in the north, Arvada, Littleton, Lakewood, Golden, what you added was probably more rural and exurban territory that has a strong Republican lean to it. And this is where, on these states with big suburbs, you get into trouble without precinct by precinct data because you never know where the Democratic areas are from, but here I can guess. It's a good looking map, but I think you were trying to go in the wrong direction, maybe too ambitious on it. I'm content to make, as I laid out, rather modest alterations from the current.

Look at the current 7th, then yours, it's like a mirror image, 90% of it would be new to Perlmutter and not neccessarily Dem friendly territory, that's why I think that 7th is not a good idea, and Adams is not the best way to tie down CO-04.

Is Pawlenty even running again? I get the feeling he's tiring of his current job, and after his narrow escape in 2006 he's due for another tough fight.

It would be sweet justice to put the relatively mainstream Republican Kline into a district with the nutty Bachmann, and to have her lose to a member of her own party. Paulsen also needs to go, what is a rightwinger like him doing in a district Obama easily carried?

aggressive in Minnesota. I think you can easily draw a 6-1 map, and I think you can draw a 7-0 map.

Split Bachmann's district several ways.
Stearns to the 7th.
Benton, Wright, Sherburne to the 5th.
Anoka to the 4th and 8th.
Washington to the 4th and 8th.

Draw Ellison and McCollum deep into the suburbs.

The district for Ellison would be as follows: Sherburne, Wright, Benton, the Hennepin County cities of Dayton, Champlin, Brooklyn Park, and Brooklyn Center, and almost all of Minneapolis. Bachmann would probably choose to run here.

This district gave Obama a 65-34 edge in 2008. It gave Franken a 53-33-14 edge. Ellison would probably be a slight favorite in this district over Bachmann.

Then using the Democratic territory picked up from Ellison and McCollum's district, weaken Paulsen and Kline.

I don't see how you can realistly draw a 7-0 or even a 6-1 Dem advantage map without putting several districts at risk of flipping in a year Republicans are not in total disarray like the past two cycles.

BTW don't expect any wildly gerrymandered maps in Minnesota. While some splitting of of counties and cities is inevitable, state law requires that existing boundries be followed as close as possible.

in general, unless they retire, are corrupt, or there is a major 1994/2006-like wave. For that matter,incumbents generally hold even mildly hostile seats. We learned that between 1954-1992, and then from 1996-2004.

That means that if we win the district, we will hold the district for a while on average. So I would draw the most aggressive map and try to pick up as many as possible in 2012, which will likely be an Obama landslide, and then worry about holding them later.

Sure if the Repubs have a massive wave year (possibly 2014 or 2018), they will end up picking up seats. But history tells us that is a risk worth taking.

and political strategy in general, we need to think like a Democratic version of Karl Rove. Be ruthless and push every law to its limit to eradicate the Repubs politically. We need to build a permanent Democratic majority.

The right number of Repubs we need in Congress is zero. They are at best worthless.

Had we done that in 2005, I think we'd have added IL-10 and IL-6 in 2006, although we'd have probably not picked up IL-14 when Hastert retired, because it would have been made really safe Repub.

But we need to go far beyond just gerrymandering. As I have mentioned before, we need sic the Patriot Act on the entire wingnut establishment. I want to see Repubs and conservatives completely destroyed with methods that make Tom Delay and Karl Rove look like wusses.

have the same kind of dominance the California Republican Party had in the early 20th century as the most progressive of the two major parties.

At certain points in the early 20th century, Republicans had as many as 38 of 40 State Senate seats and 77 of 80 Assembly seats, and they also had all 11 House seats (that California had at the time) and controlled all statewide offices including both Senate seats. Kinda like how today's Massachusetts is with Democrats.

The Republicans' grip on the state loosened with the arrival of the Okies and Arkies during the Depression and, after 1958 except for a couple of unusual circumstances, they would never even tie with the Democrats in the state legislature or House delegation again.

They only got a bare 41-39 majority in the Assembly in 1968 because of the mess that was that year's presidential election, and also in 1994 due to the Republican landslide. The House delegation became tied the after an open Democratic seat flipped R in a special election.

Also, 1958 was the last time Republicans held both Senate seats, save for a brief time between 1965 and 1969, and the last time Republicans held all statewide offices was 1950.

I remember seeing from an historical article that I wish I remember where I saw it: In the 50s, the nation's electoral powerhouse of New York leaned Democratic but was losing electoral votes, while Republican-leaning California was gaining electoral votes fast. These facts lead Republicans to be giddy about a "permanent majority". Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

Hopefully, now that we're strongly Dem on the presidential level, we can soon find some good Dems to send to the White House. I know most of our current politicians leave a lot to be desired, but I am more optimistic on the new leaders, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, than I was with their predecessors, Don Perata and Fabian Nunez, respectively.

Let's start with a good Democratic Governor first. Looks like it's going to come down to Brown vs. Newsome. I'll take Brown in that matchup. Newsome just seems like too big a risk in a general election.

is that if he is elected in '10 and reelected in '14, in 2016 he will be 78, older than McCain and hence unlikely to run for president. That's why I am not completely solidly behind Brown though if it's him vs. Newsom, I will be.

In 1998 Dems lost a net 1 seat in CA
Pickup in the 1st district where Thompson won an open seat vacated by Riggs in a landslide.
Lost the 3rd district where Ose won an open seat vacated by Fazio and the 36th district where Kuykendall won an open seat vacated by Harman.

1996 there were 3 pickups for Dems. Tauscher defeated Baker in the 10th, Capps defeated Seastrand in the 22nd and Sanchez defeated Dornan in the 46th.

The 2002 incumbent protection map was what was needed at the time. Redrawing California a 2nd time in the same decade would have looked stupid considering Dems drew the first map. It's not like Texas where Repubs only took control post-2002.

I was thinking about an article in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision on the Texas redistricting in 06 and at the end the author suggested we do with California and Illinois what the GOP did with Texas and Georgia. But now I remember.

Democrats in anyway with Karl Rove. I despised them when Repblicans did them and I have enough character to not want my party to have to stoop so low. I want Democrats to be in the right and have the moral high ground. I have ethics, beliefs, and morals, and I won't compromise them and don't think Democrats should compromise them. The only things Democrats need to do is attack REpublicans far more aggressively as out of whack with the mainstream and their policies as being detrimental to America's health.

I want to see a strong labor rights, clean environment, universal health care, fair taxation, right to choose protected, etc. I really don't care about the methods that we use to get there.

But that is besides the point, the issue is much more dire than that. The Repub party and their wingnuts want to overthrow Obama and replace it with a right-wing dictatorship. These people have never accepted the results of elections that they lost, and are plainly evil, and really could care less of democracy. So in effect, either liberals support harsher methods toward the right wing, or we are going to have a right-wing dictatorship forced on us.

In order to accomplish good things for the nation, you need to have power and retain power.

voraciously disagree on most issues while at the base having similar politics, which is amazing, from our views on Republicans, to the South, to the Democratic party and how our ideals are put into practice me and you are exact opposites.

Like for instance I would never compromise my integrity by interfering in another parties primary, simply because I know how infuriated it would make me if it was done to me and I will keep the high ground.

was Rush Limbaugh's plan to extend the Democratic primary by getting his supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. He started it the week before the Texas and Ohio primaries in March 2008.

It blew up in his face as the longer primary strengthened Obama. If Clinton had dropped out in March, Obama would never have been able to set up his organization in Indiana or North Carolina or had a real inkling that those states were competitive. Instead both of those states would have ended up like Georgia, where Obama didn't put a real effort there until the last week of the campaign and fell short.

Obama never would have a shot at Georgia though, maybe in 2012 when there are a few hundred thousand more minority voters and he's less radioactive among white voters but not ni 2008.

I doubt Rush Limbaugh of all people had that much effect on huge priamries like those in Texas and Ohio where Clinton won pretty convingly. Also I can't believe anyone would want to imitate Rush Limbaugh.

but it is estimated that 100K Op Chaos voters voted in Texas and 75K in Ohio. Operation Chaos voters were almost certainly responsible for Clinton's narrow win in the Indiana primary (won by 14K votes).

I disagree about Georgia. Had Obama advertised there from the beginning and done even stronger voter registration, I think Obama might have won there. He lost by 5% as it was. Obama got just 23% of the white vote, and I think he would have gotten more if he had campaigned there, especially in the Atlanta suburbs.

Baker WAS originally appointed by Zell Miller before winning re-election three times. Can't say for sure it would have been possible for him to have first won the office by election. Incumbancy plays aa big role.

But then again the Labor Commissioner is also black and has been in office for like a decade in Georgia.

Baker running for Governor will test how tolerant Georgia really is for a black candidate. Baker sounds like he's a good bit to the right of Harold Ford, so there really is no reason for voters to reject him outside of the race issue.

your "integrity, ethics, morals, and beliefs" don't matter shit if we have a right-wing dictatorship taking over this country.

I'll do what I have to protect my country from these cretins taking it over. And that means doing whatever it takes to reduce the power of the traitor party. The Repubs are no longer the loyal opposition, but traitorous insurgents.

I'm actually happy. As those kinds of people become increasingly dominanting in the Republican party that party will further alienate and drive into liberalism the center and moderates of this country, giving Democrats a massive and solid governing coalition.

It was unsettling to see the sheer hypocricsy in 51% of Texas Republicans supporting succession, and see the ingorant, vague, uninformed fear and hatred they show towards Obama, not that Democrats along the same lines of yourself didn't do the same to President Bush but still...

President. Bush is the worst creature this world has seen in a long while. That man never was or will be my President. But I never advocated threats against him, or suggested that he be forcibly overthrown. Nor did I hope that the country failed because he was President.

Secondly, while you are right that the Repub antics do drive moderates into the arms of liberals/Democrats, you forget the real possibility of right-wing domestic terrorism and threats at the President's security that they creatures cause.

Every thread you visit, you hijack with your extremism and irritability. Normally, I leave responding to more level-headed people like Chad, nrafter, ArkDem, or virtually anyone else. However, I must get something off my chest: Jonah Goldberg may have been right about the existence of liberal fascists because there is one right here.

He brings up right-wing extremism as a good point. When Homeland Security put out a memo warning of right-wing extremism recently what happened? The right-wing noise machine went absolutely NUTS, staunchly defending neo-nazis, white supremacists and every other kind of right-wing hate monger group that wants to overthrow the administration.

The threat of right-wing terrorism has always and will always be the biggest treat to this country. Far greater than the overhyped Islamic extremist threat. The worst an Islamic extremist can do is slip through a 9/11 scale attack, while right-wing Christofascists can overthrow our entire government and install a nutjob as dictator if given the opening.

Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascism is also a corporatist economic ideology. Historians and political scientists disagree on a precise definition, however; some would omit one or more of the preceding themes, while others would add many more. Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascists believe that nations and races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in combat against the weak. Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement. Fascism opposes class conflict and blames capitalist liberal democracies for creating class conflict and in turn blames communists for exploiting class conflict. Fascists reject the individualism and self-interest of laissez-faire capitalism. Many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism. This was to be achieved by a form of government control over business and labor (called "the corporate state" by Mussolini).

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
5. Rampant sexism
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
9. Power of corporations protected
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections.

Facism is a very vague term, but the base of facism lies in right-wing authoritarianism and hardcore nationalism. Facism in practice is a very hardcore right wing system, so "Liberal Facism" is a misuse of a term taken from a speech by Orson Wells who was hardly a good example of liberalism.

It was advocating increased vigilance in watching out for highly right wing, militia groups. I've been to these gun rallies, I've talked to these people.There are lots of them adn they are totally nuts, living in some kind of self-created fantasy world. This is in response to the kind of stuff being written, and recent events such as the cop shooting in Pittsburg, the Unitarian chuch shooting in Tennessee and other incidents. Its a valid threat and if you've heard the sheer ignorant hate and fear propagated by some of these people and groups it would scare you.

Absolutely crazy. The majority were stone cold racist black helicopter nutjobs, stockpiling guns in anticipation of libruls storming their homes to take away their guns.

My uncle, who is a gun nut, but a fairly moderate guy on most issues told me the last gun show he went to a few months ago there were tons of pamphlets going around with white supremacist information and sign up forms for right-wing militias. Crazy shit.

I really hope the FBI and DHS are keeping tabs on these gatherings, but I have my doubts. The FBI is too busy tracking environmentalists on their 10 most wanted list who never even killed anyone.

It was really unnnecessary to totally derail the discussion. I understand that conversations veer in unpredictable directions, but you bring up your admiration for Rovianism far too often. We've heard your opinions on the subject before, many times. I think we're done with this topic.

And even on mid decade redistricting Karl Rove was actually right in his methods. Too often the party gets too bogged down on the whole "moral high ground" issue. As IhateBush says, we're dealing with a domestic adversary more dangerous than the Taliban or Al Quaida will ever be. The right-wing extremists in the U.S. clearly want to overthrow the President and install a right-wing Cristofascist dictatorship. You can't treat these people with kid gloves. The only way to stop a thug is to fight back with every means at your disposal, and sometimes morality has to be tossed aside.

We've had this conversation before, but there are lines that should not be crossed. While there certainly are right-wing extremists in this country, they are dwindling by the year as they succumb to either old age, insanity, drugs, or alcoholism. Napolitano was right in issuing that memo, as right-wing groups have gotten a free pass these past eight years, but imbuing them with more power and influence then they actually have is simply paranoid.

If the torture memos taught us anything, it's that being a thug only strengthens your enemies.

Now that Murphy is elected, please apply your skills to redo NY for us. There should be two plans: a one seat loss and a two seat loss. There is plenty of potential here because there are so many surplus Democrats. King's seat can be eliminated and Lee's if there is a two seat loss. Surplus Democrats in neighboring districts (Tonko, Slaughter, Hinchey, and Higgins) can be shifted to help Murphy, Arcuri, and Massa. McMahon can be helped as well by redrawing the non-Staten Island portion of his district.

I think New York is clear of the 2 seat loss at the moment. According to the 2008 data, New York's 28 seat is the 432nd seat, followed by South Carolina's 7th seat, California's 53rd and Oregon's 6th seat.

you will have to dilute a lot of Dem districts, but the Dem incumbents should be able to carry it.

I would like to see much more aggressive redistricting schemes than the ones being proposed. In states like California, we should be able to redistrict 6-8 Repubs out given the demographic changes. In states like Minnesota, either 7-0 or 7-1 should be the goal. In Wisconsin, we should shoot for 7-1.

I could be wrong but I don't think either of your maps would meet the compactness requirement of Minnesota state law.

I will try to make a more detailed post later but my thoughts on how the map could end up looking.

- Bachman will be thrown into a Dem leaning district against McCollum. The district would cover Ramsey and most of Washington County.

- I wouldn't make to much of an effort to shore up Peterson's district, in fact I would try to add Republican areas to it. Blue Dog Peterson is safe as long as he runs for re-election but once he retires the western part of Minnesota will lean republican regardless.

to Peterson and give Oberstar portions of the Anoka and Washington counties that are favorable (unfavorable parts go to Betty McCollum). The worst parts of Bachmann's district, however, would go to Ellison's district.

Simply bad governance. I know you really hate Republicans and the GOP but a state Obama only by 10%, they deserve at least a seat.

This is how 1994's happen, the Dems get too powerful and ethically challenged and then it all caves in as the public opinion realizes that the Dems have had a stranglehold on so much power and they've abused it.

That's abuse of power and would cause a lot of Independents to vote GOP come 2012, no doubt. I'd maybe even vote a little bit GOP out of anger of that.

And it's not as easy as it sounds. The whole metro area is in tiers of blueness and anything bordering CD7 and 8 is going to be red red red (2-1 type of GOP margins in some exurbs). You'd completely fuck up both of those districts by trying a 7-0 map, and maybe even CD1 too depending on lines. In a 7 seat map, you just have to have a Republican seat to suck up all the exurbs and Republicans. An 8-0 map would be a different story, there's enough CD's to suck up all those Republicans into.

I think you should sit down and really try to do it, I'd love to be proven wrong and so what you can do.

I just decided to redo a big piece of my redistricting (its so going to kick ass) and the one thing I found is that there is nothing really that can be done for Peterson's district without drastically changing the 8th and as a Minnesotan, I think just about all of us would much rather have a deceivingly solid Iron Range district.

I started by gerrymandering out most of the Red River Valley which is the most Republican area after the exurbs, well that makes the district have to push further into the exurban areas or into CD1, which then makes CD1 have to push into the exurbs, etc.

There is simply nothing that can be changed to make MN-7 won by Obama short of giving a piece of MSP to it or gutting MN-8, which again, there simply has to be an Iron Range centered district that will elect a DFLer as the Iron Range is a HUGE part of the DFL, they put the L in DFL pretty much and there would be some bad blood within the party then.

I look at MN-7 as a seat we probably shouldnt have and there isnt much you can do to fix it without really jeopardizing the other seats so why bother with it? Plus, it'd probably still be a 50-50 chance in an open seat. Think of it as a Southern CD, vote GOP at the top but at the local, the DFL probably has a majority of the state House and Senate seats here.

It accomplishes all the objectives: 1)eliminate Bachmann's district, 2)make Paulsen's district bluer, and 3)not significantly endanger any of our incumbents.

As for the 7th CD becoming more R-leaning, it always was that way. Before the 2002 redraw, it went 53-39 for W. As I see it, this seat is on long-term loan that expires once Petersen retires. I'd rather be rid of that seat in exchange for a modified Paulsen district that we can win and hold with greater ease.

However, I'm not sure how I feel about Anoka being split between 3 districts. Would it make much difference if it were just split between Paulsen and one of the Twin City districts?

You might want to take another try at the CO map, as others have pointed out the flaws. However, someone upthread said that the old CO-7 was 58% Adams County. That is not true. IIRC, Jefferson casts the bulk of the current district's votes (58% I belive) with the rest split between Adams and Arapahoe.

look at a map. CO-07 contains almost all of Adams counties 400,000 residents and only hte smallest of chunks of Araphroe, and only a small chunk of northern Jefferson, mainly the cities of Arvada and Lakewood. Adams county is about 400,000 of the districts 650,000 population.

You have it backwards. CO-07 is a block, (Adams county), was a little chunk of Jefferson.

Adams county has 400,000 people, and about 95% of Adams county is in CO-07 and only a small bit of Jefferson, mainly the communities of Arvada nad Lakewood which don't constitute a large amount of population.

It also contains the city of Aurora, some 291,000 people, about a third of which is in Adams the rest in Araphroe.

The portions of Jefferson county that I'vecounted up are nowhere near 327,000 people. Could you tell me where you are getting that information?

American Fact Finder -> 110th Congressional District Summary File->Custom Table->Geography: County (or part). For municipalities, you can select "Place/Remainder".

Your statement about Arvada and Lakewood show precisely the issue. Lakewood, which is completely contained within the 7th, is home to 140,000 people. Arvada is partially in the 7th, and the part of Arvada in the 7th contains about another 99,000. Throw in the unincorporated bits and that's how you get 327k.

Don't forgot most of the people in Adams County live in the 2nd district (239,615 compared to 124,242 in the 7th). The 2nd contains all of Thornton (109k) and then some. You'd have to subtract out Broomfield when it incorporated into its own county, though.

Hardly 95%, not even by area, let alone population. Like I said, the remaining 240k as of the 2000 census live in Jared Polis' 2nd district. We're talking 82k in Thornton, 32k in Northglenn, and 11k in Federal Heights. There's some parts of Westminster too in the 2nd, but a lot of also unincorporated area.

Population density in Eastern Adams County is much much lower than in the western parts of the county. Most of the area, sure, is in Perlmutter's.

Aurora is also NOT entirely within the 7th. 197,515 are in the 7th, but 78,878 are actually in the 6th. If you look at the map of the 7th (with municipalities), you'll see the nice chunk of Aurora outside the district along I-225.

But you're clearly opting not to get that not that many people live in that part of the county. Here, click this US Census link.
And not to be nitpicky, but I'd only call that about 85% of the area. Doesn't matter, because half of it's just deer and coyotes anyway.

I was confusing the old MN-7 (Petersen) with the new MN-7 (Oberstar). Still, I say give Stearns and Sherburne back to Petersen, and redraw Kline's district westward to take in more conservative parts of Paulsen's district and Wright Co. Add Dakota County (and maybe part of Anoka if needed to meet the population requirement) to McCollum's district, and add Washington County to Walz's.

Is Ellison's district VRA protected in any way? Because, since it's a D+23 district next to an R+0 district, I figure we could gerrymander the 3rd to be solidly blue (at least D+6) rather than moderately so and still leaving the 5th with a double digit blue PVI.

Maybe it's just how the colors appear on my computer monitor plus a little bit of color blindness on my part but I cannot see where the 6th district ends and the 7th begins. Would it be possible for you to use a thicker line dividing similarly-colored districts in your future maps?

has an AA population that is probably in the single digits, the Somali and Ethiopian populations probably total more than the AA. It has a small Mexican population as well, and all the Hmong immigrants live in St Paul in case anyone had heard about our huge Hmong population and wondered where they live.

So MSP is probably the whitest major metro area in the country. Ellison represented a north Minneapolis state house seat which is the predominantly AA area of the city and CD5 clearly isnt going to care about race of candidates. So he got his start as an AA candidate in probably an AA majority district (or close to it) and then since it's a liberal area, was able to successfully run for higher office.

I was like, why would the Hmong choose a place whose climate is nothing like theirs. I googled and found an answer.

Many churches in Wisconsin and Minnesota - mostly Lutheran - sponsored Hmong refugees when they initially arrived in the U.S. in 1975, providing jobs and housing. Over the past three decades, their numbers have grown in those two states as their overseas relatives have arrived to join them.

There is also a significant Hmong population in California, though I am far less surprised there. Some of those Hmong probably escaped with the Vietnamese.

and the one thing I've really learned about the immigrant population is that once they find a place, they get all their family to go there and they just pretty much rebuild their home community here. So once a couple start, the floodgates have been lifted and they will concentrate in that one area. All word of mouth.

Also, when I did an off-campus program dealing with social justice and such, one thing that some homeless people told me is that Minnesota has a lot of social programs to help the poor and such so they can move here and get the help they need to.

Cy Thao's district is actually the all around ethnic area of the city with the main portion of the AA population being here. The Hmong population all lives on the East Side and is represented by Tim Mahoney.

Your CD7 in both maps I'm pretty sure voted for McCain. You got rid of a bunch of rural counties way up north that probably balance each other to 50-50 for some of the most Republican ones in the state. I really doubt Obama won it. While your 6th may have voted for Obama, it would've been by like thousands of votes and not worth decimating the Obama margin in CD7, it wouldnt fly anyway within the DFL. Cd6 is on temporary hold and we're all fine with that. We still have a shot even after it's open and we'd much rather have a solid CD7.

You shouldn't have bothered trying to get Bachmann's house into any of the districts, she doesnt belong in Congress. Put her with McCollum get her the hell out.

I like your compromise CD2 in the first map. I can definitely see that happening if the DFL is forced to strengthen him. You could probably even take in less parts of Anoka county up top and take in parts of Scott county, making it basically resemble an arc more so, taking in both of the Republican suburban/exurban arcs around MSP.